Commenters on a previous post say I'm spreading defeatism. Britmouse says I'm a professional sceptic. This raises a queer paradox. As a Marxist and extremist, shouldn't I be the utopian dreamer whilst centrists are the pragmatic realists? No. In fact, the opposite is the case. My Marxism and my ...

@Chris:
-support for a high unconditional citizens basic income;
Well if you put Milton Friedman in the "extremist" camp. I would, but on the right, not the left. Many other mainstream (at least in their time) economists have suggested it.
- the belief that CEOs are conmen;
That's not "extreme" that's just straightforward observation of reality. Although it does seem that that kind of observation can seem pretty extreme to some.
- the belief that full employment is impossible under capitalism;
Most neoclassical economists seem believe just that, especially if you look at how they act. It seems to be mainstream economic theory in the U.S.A.
I would think I am more extremist for believing that this orthodoxy ain't true, and "full employment" in the technical sense, is fairly easily attainable within a recognizably "capitalist" system.
- support for huge inheritance tax;
Was economic orthodoxy for a large part of the previous century. I'd say it's benefits are so obvious that those who oppose it are extremists, now, alas, in the ascendency.
- support for open borders;
That's just garden variety Liberalism. And it rules the policy space in Canada, for example. Of course if you mean *completely* open borders then I would agree that this is an idea that resides on the extremes. And I guess that makes me an extremist along with you. But I haven't seen you support that position so far as I can tell.
- advocacy of workers ownership;
Once again common in Canada and the US, and even orthodoxy in parts of Europe. Now "ownership of the means of production by the people", that's "extreme". Haven't heard that around here, but maybe I haven't been listening hard enough.
- a recognition that capitalism generates systematically pro-capitalist ideology and thus that parliamentary means cannot lead to socialism.
Depends what you mean by "socialism" I suppose, and "extremist" as idea would agree. But I haven't seen this said explicitly here lately.
I do understand the difference between "extremist" and "fanatic" as you explained it. And it makes a nice tagline - wish I'd thought of this before.

Commenters on a previous post say I'm spreading defeatism. Britmouse says I'm a professional sceptic. This raises a queer paradox. As a Marxist and extremist, shouldn't I be the utopian dreamer whilst centrists are the pragmatic realists? No. In fact, the opposite is the case. My Marxism and my ...

What I don't see from you is any particular extremism. I wonder what you mean by it, seeing as how hardly any of your positions or remarks seem particularly "extreme" to me.
Maybe it's because my own views seem perfectly sensible to me but are well to the "left" of the putative window, though I do not see myself as "Marxist".

Commenters on a previous post say I'm spreading defeatism. Britmouse says I'm a professional sceptic. This raises a queer paradox. As a Marxist and extremist, shouldn't I be the utopian dreamer whilst centrists are the pragmatic realists? No. In fact, the opposite is the case. My Marxism and my ...

We can certainly pass a real burden onto later generations by using up irreplaceable resources, such as fossil fuels. They will then have to find ways to do the same things with other resources, such as sustainable energy or even hydrocarbons from the solar systems gas giants. Either may or may not require them to spend more time and effort obtaining energy, which, if the latter is the case, is definitely a burden on them. They have to spend more time and effort getting energy and have less time to do other, more enjoyable, things.
But it is easy to show that the idea of passing a monetary debt on to future generations is nonsense. Assume that we can. Generation one passes it's debt to generation two. Well, what stops generation two from passing on it's bigger debt to generation three, and so on forever? Nothing! Sure the debt will keep increasing but it's only a nominal debt, not a real debt. And any generation can pass it to the next one forever. So since it never has to be paid it's not a burden and that contradicts the original assumption.
As for taxation to hold inflation in check, so long as there is enough purchasing power for humanity to purchase all it can produce, how is this a burden? You are just getting rid of money that is of no use to you because you can't buy anything new with it once everything has been bought. All you can do is bid up prices and that can be stopped by simply removing enough purchasing power by taxation so that you can't bid up the prices any more, but still you can buy everything you want.

I visit Matt Yglesias' house (HT JeffreyY). I drink one litre of milk from his fridge. I write Matt an IOU for one litre of milk. 1. If Matt subsequently tears up that IOU, then I am richer and he is poorer. Taking the two of us together, in aggregate we are neither richer nor poorer if Matt tea...